Gender and Sexuality Representation in OOTS

[SowZ]

Well, thanks for making the effort anyway. I want to assure you that any and all of my explanations on this thread are intended as after-the-fact analysis of my previous decisions, not as excuses. I'm not saying in any way that any of my decisions have been correct, merely that I can track why I made them at the time.

I wouldn't be hard on yourself. Once or twice I probably have mused on the lack of LGBT characters despite an overall respectful attitude toward it, but the world always struck me as pretty diverse in regards to gender and ethnicity. More than any other popular high fantasy world I can think of, anyway.

[Carry2]

There's an instance of that, obviously, but Elan and Belkar have been strong antagonistic forces for the rest of the OotS, and we've also seen V flying off her rocker and antagonising Durkon and Elan during the whole Kubotagate affair (or Elan and Durkon antagonising V, depending on what side you take).

Well, yes. That the word of an OOTSer vs. the opinion of another OOTSer. Those are both considered 'in-group' members by the audience, and therefore permitted to voice disagreement. By contrast, you had some people- not many, but some- seriously defending Belkar's casual murder of a gnomish merchant when Celia spoke up against it.

There's little or no evidence that Celia's pacifism was a serious impediment to the group, given that she was clever enough to find ways of circumventing danger nonviolently (for which I am willing to give her major props), and there was still a significant chunk of the audience that couldn't stand it. Given that Miko was always noticeably- not a lot, but noticeably- further down the sliding scale of cynicism vs. idealism, and that she actively interfered with the Order's 'other plans', the audience reactions were proportionately more violent.

But honestly, during all those arguments, the only way I remember that gender was invoked were speculations that Miko wasn't getting enough action (which comes straight out of Roy's mouth.)

I would just mention that I dimly recall some kind of popularity poll on Miko back in the day, and respondants were more-or-less split down the middle on loving or hating her. Contentious? Yeah. But not exactly despised.

.

[SowZ]

Well, yes. That the word of an OOTSer vs. the opinion of another OOTSer. Those are both considered 'in-group' members by the audience, and therefore permitted to voice disagreement. By contrast, you had some people- not many, but some- seriously defending Belkar's casual murder of a gnomish merchant when Celia spoke up against it.

There's little or no evidence that Celia's pacifism was a serious impediment to the group, given that she was clever enough to find ways of circumventing danger nonviolently (for which I am willing to give her major props), and there was still a significant chunk of the audience that couldn't stand it. Given that Miko was always noticeably- not a lot, but noticeably- further down the sliding scale of cynicism vs. idealism, and that she actively interfered with the Order's 'other plans', the audience reactions were proportionately more violent.

But honestly, during all those arguments, the only way I remember that gender was invoked were speculations that Miko wasn't getting any (which comes straight out of Roy's mouth.) Given that just about every other line of argument had been tried, I'm not seeing particular evidence for sexism.

The comic doesn't endorse Roy's sexism either, with the heavens frowning on such comments and even what was practically an admission from Roy that he is somewhat sexist.

I like Celia, personally. I didn't like Miko, but I liked her as a character and I liked what she added to the story. Someone I loved to hate, you know? More Angel Eyes style of hate than Wesley Crusher.

[Shadowknight12]

But honestly, during all those arguments, the only way I remember that gender was invoked were speculations that Miko wasn't getting any (which comes straight out of Roy's mouth.) Given that just about every other line of argument had been tried, I'm not seeing particular evidence for sexism.

You are confusing conscious sexism with unconscious sexism. Just because someone holds sexist thoughts doesn't mean they are aware of them.

Like I said before, it's entirely possible that Celia and Miko were not seen as legitimate antagonistic forces (and therefore respected as such), but instead seen as unnecessary nuisances. A lot of people like and respect Xykon, Redcloak, Thog, Tarquin and even Nale, despite them being heavy inconveniences to the Order, yet Miko and Celia aren't viewed as legitimate forces of conflict. Haley, Belkar and Celia clashed phenomenally most of the time (and got along, at some points), just like Xykon and Roy clashed every single panel they were together, or Elan and Nale, or Thog and Roy/Elan, but those people didn't see the rich character development in that. They didn't appreciate the personal struggles that Haley had to overcome while travelling with Belkar and Celia, and didn't appreciate Celia's role in fleshing out Haley by challenging her so often.

And I repeat: because Celia was not seen as a proper antagonistic force. And if you do not recognise her narrative value and the reasons those conflicts happen, then you're obviously going to resent the needless conflict (because you do not see it as necessary).

Good people can be antagonistic forces. Both Miko and Celia were good-aligned antagonistic forces (until Miko fell, at any rate), and that doesn't make them any less valid as forms of conflict that flesh out the protagonists.

[SowZ]

You are confusing conscious sexism with unconscious sexism. Just because someone holds sexist thoughts doesn't mean they are aware of them.

Like I said before, it's entirely possible that Celia and Miko were not seen as legitimate antagonistic forces (and therefore respected as such), but instead seen as unnecessary nuisances. A lot of people like and respect Xykon, Redcloak, Thog, Tarquin and even Nale, despite them being heavy inconveniences to the Order, yet Miko and Celia aren't viewed as legitimate forces of conflict. Haley, Belkar and Celia clashed phenomenally most of the time (and got along, at some points), just like Xykon and Roy clashed every single panel they were together, or Elan and Nale, or Thog and Roy/Elan, but those people didn't see the rich character development in that. They didn't appreciate the personal struggles that Haley had to overcome while travelling with Belkar and Celia, and didn't appreciate Celia's role in fleshing out Haley by challenging her so often.

And I repeat: because Celia was not seen as a proper antagonistic force. And if you do not recognise her narrative value and the reasons those conflicts happen, then you're obviously going to resent the needless conflict (because you do not see it as necessary).

Good people can be antagonistic forces. Both Miko and Celia were good-aligned antagonistic forces (until Miko fell, at any rate), and that doesn't make them any less valid as forms of conflict that flesh out the protagonists.

I disagree with half of that, personally. Miko was absolutely a legitimate antagonist and as valid as an opposition to the Order as anyone. Celia, however, I view as an asset. I think the good she did in the story far outweighs any bad and without her the whole Order may have failed. Celia clashes with Haley, but most the time she tells Haley what she needs to hear.

Yeah, the golem sub plot was her screwing up. But just because an ally screws up, I don't view them as antagonists.

[Shadowknight12]

I disagree with half of that, personally. Miko was absolutely a legitimate antagonist and as valid as an opposition to the Order as anyone. Celia, however, I view as an asset. I think the good she did in the story far outweighs any bad and without her the whole Order may have failed. Celia clashes with Haley, but most the time she tells Haley what she needs to hear.

Yeah, the golem sub plot was her screwing up. But just because an ally screws up, I don't view them as antagonists.

Antagonists are not bad for a story. They need not be evil. They are, in fact, invaluable and should be cherished just as much as the protagonists.

The protagonist is the character we're guided to identify with. The antagonist is the force or character who opposes them, or who generates conflict between they and the protagonist, or between the protagonist and others. The antagonist is a force of challenge and conflict, and this is a very good thing. The heart and soul of every story is conflict, and without antagonists, there is no conflict.

Antagonists don't even need to be characters, in fact. In disaster stories, the world is the antagonist. And in good stories, the distinction between protagonist and antagonist blurs very often (see: the whole debacle with V vs. Elan and Durkon, for example, or Belkar vs. everyone else in the Order).

An antagonist doesn't need to antagonise out of sadism, evil or hatred. A soldier or police officer is just doing their duty, a parent who repeatedly sabotages their child who wishes to go off on adventures is doing that out of love, a jealous lover who causes strife and grief might do so out of low self-esteem or because the protagonist has a shifty personality that engenders suspicion in everyone.

Antagonists (or antagonistic forces) are the lifeblood of the story. Without them, there is no conflict, and without conflict, the story is dead.

[Dudebot2000]

Like I said before, it's entirely possible that Celia and Miko were not seen as legitimate antagonistic forces (and therefore respected as such), but instead seen as unnecessary nuisances. A lot of people like and respect Xykon, Redcloak, Thog, Tarquin and even Nale, despite them being heavy inconveniences to the Order, yet Miko and Celia aren't viewed as legitimate forces of conflict. Haley, Belkar and Celia clashed phenomenally most of the time (and got along, at some points), just like Xykon and Roy clashed every single panel they were together, or Elan and Nale, or Thog and Roy/Elan, but those people didn't see the rich character development in that. They didn't appreciate the personal struggles that Haley had to overcome while travelling with Belkar and Celia, and didn't appreciate Celia's role in fleshing out Haley by challenging her so often.

The difference between Miko, Celia and Thog, Xykon, Nale is, that the former two should actually be on the side of the Order.
If Xykon puts the Order in a difficult situation, he's doing his job well. If the same happens, because Celia for example dislikes killing or doesn't listen to the far more experienced Haley, then she's behaving like an annoyance. She should know better.
The night she took Roys body to that golem mage, she behaved very moronic. People were annoyed with her because of that. I don't see any sexism in disliking her for such behaviour. Any male behaving that way would be called an idiot as well from parts of the community.


A shame you don't want to talk about biology anymore in this thread. I don't feel that you sufficiently answered the discrepancies between men and women when it comes to sport results.

[Shadowknight12]

The difference between Miko, Celia and Thog, Xykon, Nale is, that the former two should actually be on the side of the Order.
If Xykon puts the Order in a difficult situation, he's doing his job well. If the same happens, because Celia for example dislikes killing or doesn't listen to the far more experienced Haley, then she's behaving like an annoyance. She should know better.
The night she took Roys body to that golem mage, she behaved very moronic. People were annoyed with her because of that. I don't see any sexism in disliking her for such behaviour. Any male behaving that way would be called an idiot as well from parts of the community.

I have two counters to those presumptions: Belkar and Elan. Also on the side of the Order, also antagonistic forces (Elan being very closely similar to Celia's flavour of antagonism).

A shame you don't want to talk about biology anymore in this thread. I don't feel that you sufficiently answered the discrepancies between men and women when it comes to sport results.

I am more than willing to discuss biology until the metaphorical cows arrive on the 9:35 express to tearfully reunite with their long-lost relatives.

Just not in this thread. As I have repeatedly mentioned, PMs are the way to go.

[Grey Watcher]

Could I get a general description of his reaction? Or the dialogue? Not enough to break the board rules, of course, but just enough to get a gist of the idea? I am very interested in this, and I admit I've always had a soft spot for Hinjo (and Argent), so I'd be absolutely thrilled if there was something that at least vaguely supported my fanboyish headcanon on him.

...

The Cliff Notes version of the scene is as follows:

Spoiler

Show

While Hinjo debriefs Lien about a recent mission to investigate the source of the attacks on the refugee fleet, Elan makes a rather obvious attempt to set them up on a romantic dinner date (bringing chairs, a table, food, a candleabra, etc.). When they ask him what the heck he's doing, he says that, as the last two paladins, it's (narratively) obvious that they have to repopulate the paladin species, and he's just trying to help. After Hinjo explains being a paladin doesn't work that way, Lien interjects, stating that she has a husband (or maybe just a boyfriend, I forget the precise degree of relationship formality) and that even if she didn't, Hinjo's not her type. When both Hinjo and Elan react with some surprise, she contrasts Hinjo's refined, well-groomed appearance with her husband's rugged, muscular good looks. Something in Hinjo's expression left me with the idea that he himself thought Lien's husband sounded pretty hot.

[Shadowknight12]

The Cliff Notes version of the scene is as follows:

Spoiler

Show

While Hinjo debriefs Lien about a recent mission to investigate the source of the attacks on the refugee fleet, Elan makes a rather obvious attempt to set them up on a romantic dinner date (bringing chairs, a table, food, a candleabra, etc.). When they ask him what the heck he's doing, he says that, as the last two paladins, it's (narratively) obvious that they have to repopulate the paladin species, and he's just trying to help. After Hinjo explains being a paladin doesn't work that way, Lien interjects, stating that she has a husband (or maybe just a boyfriend, I forget the precise degree of relationship formality) and that even if she didn't, Hinjo's not her type. When both Hinjo and Elan react with some surprise, she contrasts Hinjo's refined, well-groomed appearance with her husband's rugged, muscular good looks. Something in Hinjo's expression left me with the idea that he himself thought Lien's husband sounded pretty hot.

Oh, my. Thank you for taking the time to type all that up!

I am thoroughly pleased by all that, and only renews my zeal to hunt down OotS book copies as soon as my country stops curtailing my financial freedoms.

[Dudebot2000]

I have two counters to those presumptions: Belkar and Elan. Also on the side of the Order, also antagonistic forces (Elan being very closely similar to Celia's flavour of antagonism).

Both of whom are called idiots for their stupid behaviour. And not just in the comic, but also on the forum. Granted, they got better and smarter, but that's character growth for you.

I am more than willing to discuss biology until the metaphorical cows arrive on the 9:35 express to tearfully reunite with their long-lost relatives.

Just not in this thread. As I have repeatedly mentioned, PMs are the way to go.

Yeah, PMs aren't suited for a discussion between about 4-5 people. Maybe we can move to another thread, when the rest agrees?

[Shadowknight12]

Both of whom are called idiots for their stupid behaviour. And not just in the comic, but also on the forum. Granted, they got better and smarter, but that's character growth for you.

And yet they were generally liked (or at least tolerated). Particularly Elan, who was just as much of a well-meaning, good-aligned airhead as Celia.

Yeah, PMs aren't suited for a discussion between about 4-5 people. Maybe we can move to another thread, when the rest agrees?

I would ask a moderator if I was you. This has "real life politics" and "morally justified thread" written all over it, and the last thing I want is to draw moderator ire upon my head.

[Cavelcade]

And yet they were generally liked (or at least tolerated). Particularly Elan, who was just as much of a well-meaning, good-aligned airhead as Celia.

But Celia isn't an airhead? She's naive with regards to harsh realities of lower class life (and, y'know, mortals) but she's not stupid. She's an excellent lawyer, in fact, and her antagonism (using your definition of it) was that her rather developed moral code didn't condone murder.

In the meta, this-is-a-representation-of-a-game, reading of OotS, she's the character who doesn't want to kill the Kobolds when the rest of the party just wants to get on with the adventure. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I'd say a lot of people have had annoying experiences with that kind of character, and that's why she gets that bad reaction. They consider her actions to be stupid, but her to be smart, so her 'stupid' actions annoy them, on top of the D&D action.

I actually really, really like Celia, though, and find Miko...interesting, and pitiable.

Also Miko was definitely as much of an antagonist as at least Nale - I'd say moreso. I think you're being unfair here.

[Lorsa]

To the Giant:

I think Miko was a great character. In many ways she was the epitome of all the horrible paladin stories from gaming tables throughout the decades. That's what I think OOTS is all about, humour around D&D both as system, setting and actual play. The fact that it has also developed a great story is just a bonus (well a very good one)!

Yes, Miko was annoying in her lawfulness but that was the point (or so I thought). I think she added a lot to the story, just too bad she couldn't let go of her boxed-in viewpoint and become a member of the party.

Celia. I love Celia. I think she is great, especially due to her pacifism. It helps show just how messed up morality a roleplaying group can have and still be called good. I really liked when she was trying to pose as a necromancer, that made me laugh a lot. I hope that Roy will stick (pun intended) to her and their relationship will be featured in more strips. I even hope she will become a member of the OOTS, instead of... of... err... right. In any case, a great character.


It's good to be aware of what gender and sexuality representation you have in a story - but in my opinion it's not the end of the world that things aren't equal. My roleplaying campaigns often have somewhat unequal representation too (the most interesting characters tend to be female for some reason).

So to sum up, I just wanted to raise a voice for someone who enjoyed Miko's presence in the story and yes, I wish I was Roy so I could date Celia (I'm a sucker for wings).

[Shadowknight12]

But Celia isn't an airhead? She's naive with regards to harsh realities of lower class life (and, y'know, mortals) but she's not stupid. She's an excellent lawyer, in fact, and her antagonism (using your definition of it) was that her rather developed moral code didn't condone murder.

In the meta, this-is-a-representation-of-a-game, reading of OotS, she's the character who doesn't want to kill the Kobolds when the rest of the party just wants to get on with the adventure. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I'd say a lot of people have had annoying experiences with that kind of character, and that's why she gets that bad reaction. They consider her actions to be stupid, but her to be smart, so her 'stupid' actions annoy them, on top of the D&D action.

I actually really, really like Celia, though, and find Miko...interesting, and pitiable.

Also Miko was definitely as much of an antagonist as at least Nale - I'd say moreso. I think you're being unfair here.

I was using Haley's words, not mine (regarding the "airhead" thing). I find Celia to be one of my favourite characters, and I profoundly respect her pacifism. I think what she did with the Thieves' Guild was absolutely magnificent. But I don't voice that sort of opinion around here because I don't want to get lynched.

Miko wasn't someone I personally liked or admired, but from a narrative perspective, her entire shtick of being a big middle finger to Lawful Stupid paladins everywhere was unbelievably awesome.

Also, just because you can appreciate Miko as an antagonist doesn't mean that most other forumers can. I think that 50% to 70% of the ire against her is the aforementioned middle finger to Lawful Stupid paladins, but some degree of the hatred against her was that she was not seen as a Nale, Xykon or Tarquin equivalent, who have greatly inconvenienced the Order before (and in far worse way than Miko) and yet she had the audacity to oppose them.

[rewinn]

... Miko—a major, complex character who had a lot of energy devoted to her and was the first non-OOTS member to be featured on the cover of one of the books. And the reaction was that she was universally despised and people actively wished for her death.

... Celia came in to provide another female voice and prove that Haley wasn't speaking for all women. And the reaction was that she became universally despised and people actively wished for her death.

So, yeah. It's not unreasonable for me to have concluded at that point that I was not cut out to write female characters....

I am genuinely surprised at this, and slightly saddened.

First Miko is not universally despised; she is a great great character who was majorly wrongheaded in a very serious way. But there was hope for redemption, up until the point where her flaw got her killed (unlike her Evil Opposite Belkar, who started on the road to reform and lived). I didn't join in flaming her because, well what's the point? Every hero needs flaws, and some don't overcome them; isn't that good albeit tragic writing?

Celia is also a fine character. She's not as powerful as most other named characters, and as a pacifist she probably doesn't belong on the quest any more than Inky does, but she achieves her goals within her limits; without her negotiating skills, Haley would *still* be fighting the Thieves Guild and Roy's body would be cleaning Grubwiggler's chalkboards (and the fact that Haley later broke the deal only makes things better.) I sincerely regret that Celia and V didn't have more chance for conversation because the intellectual orientation they have in common could have led to some great tea-times.

In general, with respect to OOTS female characters, I don't see a problem with those characters, only with the expectations of fandom. An author must write to please himself, and if The Giant isn't happy with his female characters, well that's the way it goes, but I hope that the prejudices of a vocal segment of fandom doesn't rob us of some perfectly decent writing.

[Shadowknight12]

In general, with respect to OOTS female characters, I don't see a problem with those characters, only with the expectations of fandom. An author must write to please himself, and if The Giant isn't happy with his female characters, well that's the way it goes, but I hope that the prejudices of a vocal segment of fandom doesn't rob us of some perfectly decent writing.

I'm just going to leave this here:

Nobody is saying that the Giant is prejudiced against women or LGBTQ characters. What we're saying is that his work isn't particularly inclusive of women or LGBTQ characters, and that's disappointing, because inclusivity is good for people who don't get to have their gender or sexuality reaffirmed every time they turn on a television or open a book.

I have no issue with the decisions you've made, I don't hold you responsible for "not doing enough" because I don't have any right to do that. On the contrary, I appreciate the good things you did do. Just wanted to make sure you didn't take away a purely negative impression from this thread, and instead took away positive stuff.

So as to permanently erase the idea that this thread is in any way about making the Giant feel bad about anything, or telling him what to do, or implying anything negative about the Giant.

[The Giant]

With regard to Miko, keep in mind that the end of her story (plus time) has significantly softened the opinions around here of her value to the story. At one point it seemed like the main division of opinion seemed to be those who hated her and wanted her out of the story immediately, and those who hated her and wanted the story to make her suffer for a while first.

Of course, many of those readers have stopped reading the comic, and many of those now reading got the benefit of reading her whole arc at once. So opinions on her now have little bearing on the reaction to her then.

Interestingly, both Miko and Celia got labeled as being "The DM's Girlfriend" when they were around. Which I found incredibly insulting even at the time.

[Raineh Daze]

Interestingly, both Miko and Celia got labeled as being "The DM's Girlfriend" when they were around. Which I found incredibly insulting even at the time.

Eugh. Now that is blatant sexism on the part of anyone that said it.

[Grey Watcher]

With regard to Miko, keep in mind that the end of her story (plus time) has significantly softened the opinions around here of her value to the story. At one point it seemed like the main division of opinion seemed to be those who hated her and wanted her out of the story immediately, and those who hated her and wanted the story to make her suffer for a while first.

...

Just going to back you up on this. As an active moderator at the time, I can attest that Miko really was quite the lightning rod. New forumites got verbally attacked because their first post was something like "I thought that kung-fu move Miko did was pretty awesome," and some of Miko's detractors couldn't abide her receiving anything that even remotely looked like a compliment. There were literally threads called things like the "The Anti-Miko Thread", "The Pro-Miko Thread" (which was less popular), the "The Anti-Pro MikoThread" (because it wasn't enough to hate the character, people felt so strongly they had to take a stand against people who didn't hate the character), "The Anti-Anti Miko Thread" (same reasons as before, just reversed), and I don't even remember how many permutations before we finally had a Forum Rules revision to shut all the nonsense down and get back to simply "vehement hatred of the character herself".

On the main subject of this thread, I find that, even though I've never attempted to write professionally, even something as simple as writing up a D&D character, I've run into some of the same issues as Burlew has described here (and I'm a gay man at that). I've worried that a arbitrarily changing a character's sexuality felt forced, even though the character literally hadn't seen any play yet. I've worried that it might be too flamboyant, or too subtle.

As comforting as it is to find well-written gay characters that aren't reduced to two-dimensional sketches like the leading lady's campy best friend or the tragic AIDS patient, I've honestly learned not to expect it. I mean, unless the character's involved in a romance plot or a coming out story or something, how do you really sell a character's sexuality in a way that doesn't come off as either dismissively cheap or ridiculously gratuitous? Being gay is a fundamental part of who I am, but it's not like it comes up when I'm, say applying for a job or playing a board game at a convention. I guess because our culture still operates on a straight-and-cisgendered-until-proven-otherwise basis, it's difficult to find a way for a character to be LGBT+ without suddenly having to wrap the entire plot around romance and/or coming out stories.

I guess the point of this rambling post is that, even though I have nowhere near the same experience at doing what you do, even my limited dabbling makes me able to empathize with your dilemma.

I do want to say that, while it might be a bit late for OOTS, given that most of the major character's sexualities have been defined, I think that if you were so inclined, you could write a good LGBT character because you write good characters, period. I mean, as tricky as inclusiveness can be, gay people are still people, and you write good people.

[Procyonpi]

You do realize that there's no narrative reason for V's children to be adopted except to raise the possibility that it's a gay or lesbian marriage, right? I mean, if I wanted to eliminate that as one of the potential options, I would simply have to have made their children biologically theirs. Which would have taken no explanation at all. And which I did not do.

And that's all I'm going to say about that.

Even that wouldn't have prevented the possibility of them not being an opposite-sexed couple: DnD does, afterall, have mechanics for transgenderism, and there are plenty of same sex couples in the real world who are the both the biological parents of their children. But it does open up more options.

[Raineh Daze]

DnD does, afterall, have mechanics for transgenderism.

What. That, just... what.

[Shadowknight12]

Interestingly, both Miko and Celia got labeled as being "The DM's Girlfriend" when they were around. Which I found incredibly insulting even at the time.

I actually encountered that mentality on a thread a couple days ago. I was stunned out of my mind when I read it. The concept itself is also incredibly sexist, because it implies that the only reason a female player or character has power or agency is because it has been granted to her by a male authority.

Just going to back you up on this. As an active moderator at the time, I can attest that Miko really was quite the lightning rod. New forumites got verbally attacked because their first post was something like "I thought that kung-fu move Miko did was pretty awesome," and some of Miko's detractors couldn't abide her receiving anything that even remotely looked like a compliment. There were literally threads called things like the "The Anti-Miko Thread", "The Pro-Miko Thread" (which was less popular), the "The Anti-Pro MikoThread" (because it wasn't enough to hate the character, people felt so strongly they had to take a stand against people who didn't hate the character), "The Anti-Anti Miko Thread" (same reasons as before, just reversed), and I don't even remember how many permutations before we finally had a Forum Rules revision to shut all the nonsense down and get back to simply "vehement hatred of the character herself".

Suddenly the strict moderation makes perfect sense. Yikes, that must have been hell.

I do want to say that, while it might be a bit late for OOTS, given that most of the major character's sexualities have been defined, I think that if you were so inclined, you could write a good LGBT character because you write good characters, period. I mean, as tricky as inclusiveness can be, gay people are still people, and you write good people.

I couldn't agree more.

[Water_Bear]

But Celia isn't an airhead?

Well, at the very least you shouldn't call her one to her face.

Personally I like Celia, but only in small quantities. She reminds me of a lot of my old Granola Girl friends; funny kind and cute but also full-to-bursting with moral superiority and vastly overestimating their own intelligence. She's a great foil for Haley, and I liked that arc a lot, but her schtick got old pretty fast.

I'm fairly sure I would have liked her a lot less as a guy though; the doofy non-combatant dude who gets thrown into an adventure feels patronizing and I can't stand it for more than a few minutes. Arthur Dent is the exception that proves the rule.

While obviously female (not all characters are human[oid]) characters catch more flack than male ones, I think saying the hate for a character like Miko or Celia is primarily about sexism might be missing the mark. Most people hate hypocrites, side with the heroes instinctively, and get sick of bossy stick-in-the-mud characters. The same goes for being irritated by moral superiority, especially where it challenges the legitimacy of the heroes attitudes, and get annoyed at ditzy antics.

-Edit-

Just read the bits above my post...

Interestingly, both Miko and Celia got labeled as being "The DM's Girlfriend" when they were around. Which I found incredibly insulting even at the time.

Never mind.

Stupid formumites, not retroactively changing their sexist attitudes to prove me right...

[lio45]

A shame you don't want to talk about biology anymore in this thread. I don't feel that you sufficiently answered the discrepancies between men and women when it comes to sport results.

Yeah, PMs aren't suited for a discussion between about 4-5 people. Maybe we can move to another thread, when the rest agrees?

Exactly... What's all this BS about taking stuff to PM?

This thread is about gender ratio in a comic that has adventurers as the main characters and that takes place in a generally dangerous/violent universe where most characters are human. Bringing up that there are indeed some basic gender differences (i.e. bringing up human biology), whether people want to hear it or not, is about as squarely on topic as can be.

My apologies for the crude analogy that is about to follow, but if for example a comic takes place exclusively in an environment where adult humans nurture and breastfeed newborn babies, don't you think it wouldn't be so abnormal to notice the gender balance among the adult human protagonists isn't an exact 50:50? And more importantly, in a discussion about gender balance in that comic, wouldn't you expect biology to come up?

Or say another comic takes place at the Summer Olympics with the Track & Field athletes as the protagonists... and that sparks a discussion thread from someone complaining that the percentages of whites and Asians in the group of characters are way lower than they actually are in the human population, and that the racial mix of the protagonists isn't perfectly balanced... then what, the whole thread should be taking place via PM?


Really, I have a very hard time understanding why some forumers would actually want something as central to the topic at hand be swept under the rug (a.k.a. switched to PM). It's just baffling.

Then the artist would be opening themselves up to criticism (including, quite possibly, self-criticism), the way any artist who compromises their principles for monetary gain opens themselves up to criticism. I don't see why "I did it for the money" should grant an artist immunity.

Honestly? Nothing should grant immunity from criticism. It's just that some reasons for doing stuff can be better than others.

[Raineh Daze]

Because it was turning into a long, utterly tangential and irrelevant discussion about why men tend to be, on average, stronger than women.

That is not relevant when talking about a system that contains no advantages or penalties based on sex.

I'm not the only one. :/

[jere7my]

Exactly... What's all this BS about taking stuff to PM?

Really, I have a very hard time understanding why some forumers would actually want something as central to the topic at hand be swept under the rug (a.k.a. switched to PM). It's just baffling.

Whether you understand it or not, Rich has already echoed the sentiment that the "bodybuilding stuff" is off-topic.

[dps]

Because it was turning into a long, utterly tangential and irrelevant discussion about why men tend to be, on average, stronger than women.

That is not relevant when talking about a system that contains no advantages or penalties based on sex.

I'm not the only one. :/

It wouldn't be relevant if OotS was still just about making jokes about D&D rules, but given that Rich cares more about the story than D&D mechanics, I think it arguably is relevant. OTOH, I think the topic has pretty much been played out.

[Raineh Daze]

It wouldn't be relevant if OotS was still just about making jokes about D&D rules, but given that Rich cares more about the story than D&D mechanics, I think it arguably is relevant. OTOH, I think the topic has pretty much been played out.

I doubt that he'd be particularly eager to throw a strength imbalance such as that in on the basis of a circular argument about the cause of said imbalance if he hasn't already included it. Because, uh, that would be a completely random rule to overturn.

[Water_Bear]

Really, I have a very hard time understanding why some forumers would actually want something as central to the topic at hand be swept under the rug (a.k.a. switched to PM). It's just baffling.

Partly, it comes from the fact that very few of us here actually know the biology well enough to debate it and most of the people who don't know enough also don't know they don't know enough.

There's also the fact that biology surrounding sex has become incredibly politicized and, as I so helpfully demonstrated earlier, discussing it can lead to off-topic political stuff which jeopardizes the thread and our accounts.

But part of it is also just because, as much as I hate to admit it, D&D 3.5 is not half as simulationist as it was intended to be and that game is the foundation for the OotS universe. Humans can successfully interbreed with giant magic lizards and sexless lovecraftian horrors but not dwarves. Even geniuses are unable to identify themselves as a member of their own species without specialist training. And the only physical differences between men and women are on the height/weight table, which doesn't even have the decency to be correlated with Strength.

As to the Mod-Approved Thread idea, I would like to see a response on that though. I like the idea of any discussion where I get to ramble about epigenetics and speculate about neolithic social mores in the same post.